SJ just got all them back up, with the notation to avoid wheel-warring,
which leads me to think he's not aware of what went one already with the
pages... *sigh* Seriously, why does anyone care this much one way or the
other about these?
--
-Brock
The premise of the article was that an commercial advertisment on
television became a meme (internet little mikey story), although
essentially through a BBC radio station. The article was SPd and went
mad, then went through Afd (NC) was blocked from editing for 3 weeks
and then the advert ended. During the time various UK taboild
newspapers had discovered the identity of the boy (along with a
respected broadsheet South African newspaper). The article lasted 8
weeks before I named the boy. (although another picture was added at a
later stage).
My own thoughts on the subject ran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Frosties_Kid#What_is_this_article_abo…
"His existence and 50,000 internet blogs wanting the poor kid dead is
just too much for Wikipedia. The advert is ephemeral and fluttered its
last public airing on TV 6 weeks ago. Ephemera has a place, but a biog
of a kid who looks like a future star of the South African Olympic
team, shouldn't leave him with a moniker of being the Frosties Kid, 15
year old boys don't need that notoriety (or for that matter deserve a
biog)."
I think the same views are mirrored in the current WP:BLP (although
maybe not the ephemera bit).
Is it actually bad for wikipedians to use wikipedia a source and
declaim unfounded blog and radio station stories? A bridge too far?
Michael
Haven't noticed this before - a Wikipedia link popping up in the
"related links" section of a BBC News story. Might be worth keeping an
eye on the page...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6729905.stm
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
I think what is happening is that the reporter has a habit of taking a look at the Wikipedia article, just as many of us do. The link just reflects an increasingly common practice. We aspired to be a public utility, now we are.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: michael west [mailto:michawest@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2007 07:49 AM
>To: andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk, 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC News gives enwp as further reading
>
>lol - it might be the BBC cost cutting on having to use old press
>association extracts! maybe the foundation should get a donation for
>each b(bcw)iki link...
>
>On 07/06/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Haven't noticed this before - a Wikipedia link popping up in the
>> "related links" section of a BBC News story. Might be worth keeping an
>> eye on the page...
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6729905.stm
>>
>> --
>> - Andrew Gray
>> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
On 7 Jun 2007 at 04:46:31 +0100, "Tony Sidaway"
<tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Because they're a useless bunch of wankers, possibly. I'd forgotten
> that they existed, and I'm sure most of us here had, too.
Which doesn't really explain why *that* useless bunch of wankers gets
their own article, while *other* useless bunches of wankers get
people insisting, with the temperament of a junkyard dog, that no
reference to them may ever be permitted anywhere on Wikipedia.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
The [[Wikitruth]] site is engaging in "outing" the real names of
Wikipedia editors, as well as various personal info (such as claiming
transsexuality, and reporting on alleged sexual fetishes). It's also
publishing various deleted articles from Wikipedia that have WP:BLP
concerns associated with them. So how come the "anti-attack-sites"
faction doesn't seem to care about it... it's got its own Wikipedia
article, complete with an external link.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 6 Jun 2007 at 08:19:46 -0700, "Joe Szilagyi" <szilagyi(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> with the highest number of users? If something is blatantly illegal, say, in
> Turkey or the United Kingdom, but not in the United States, what happens?
Apparently the letter "W" is illegal in Turkey:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002584.html
We're violating that law with our very name! (Granted, the Turkish
Wikipedia is called "Vikipedi", but it's still within the
wikipedia.org domain, and the English and other-language Wikipedias
with the offending "W" in them are all accessible there as far as I
know.)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 6/3/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/3/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Guy Chapman aka JzG schreef:
> > > On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:22:17 +0100, "James Farrar"
> > > <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK,
> > > >> let's finally grab this tiger by the tail.
> > > >
> > > >Yes, per [[IDONTLIKEIT]].
> > >
> > > Or possibly per the reason stated.
> >
> > No, apart from [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:FU]] and
> > [[WP:NOT]], there was not a single reason for deletion of these pages,
> > and it's a scandal that they have not been undeleted already.
>
> The failure to recognize that BJAODN deliberately violates the norms of
> the
> rest of Wikipedia in order to make the culture healthier and the
> encyclopedia better (similar to how people can experiment in the Sandbox,
> but not the mainspace) is extraordinarily disappointing.
>
> It's called Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense for a reason.
Yes.
----
In general, in comment on all the comments about BJAODN:
Any example of how a part of BJAODN violated the GFDL can be refuted with
another part that doesn't violate the GFDL.
For every non-funny joke, there was one that had me in stitches, and
probably you too.
For every dozen puerile misuses and 1/2 page cut there was -- if you looked
hard enough -- something that would make you laugh, and you'd realize you
were laughing because it was a joke about Wikipedia and you were a
Wikipedian, and that is a good feeling.
No argument about how it was "a massive waste of time" or "a complete
copyright violation" or "it was great through and through" or anything
similarly broad and undiscriminating is going to fly in the face of a group
of pages that were nearly six years old and incredibly diverse.
So: in the interests of not sitting through more copyright arguments and
more deletion procedural arguments -- remember, every time you quote an
acronym God kills a kitten -- let's get back to basics.
I'd like to propose leaving the old BJAODN pages alone for the moment --
recognizing that they are (hopefully) preserved in a dump and the deletion
logs for the dedicated and foolhardy to sort through, remove the funniest
bits for a future archive and credit if necessary. Anyone who wants to
figure out how to make these available for non-admins to work on I'm sure
would be welcomed, and hopefully the pages won't completely die by being
left alone. If others want to fight to get them undeleted, or act boldly to
undelete, my bias is that this would be a good thing, but doing so
immediately and unilaterally will just cause further drama.
In line with this, I would love to see a discussion about keeping or
deleting the pages with the participation of many more experienced
Wikipedians and those familiar with the GFDL; there have only been a few
loud voices so far, and while not a "crucial" page, BJAODN is a page that
predates most of the policies and 90% of the content on this site. Thus I
feel sure that many people beyond the people who have spoken up so far have
opinions and strong feelings on it.
I'd also like to propose a new BJAODN page -- BJAODN for the 21st century --
that could come into being over time, where we work out a way to keep a
small portion of the funny stuff; perhaps equitable basic policies for
quoting pages, removing any hint of BLPs or attacks, and only quoting
fair-use sized chunks of deleted pages. Yes, it's not encyclopedic; but yes,
there is always going to be an urge to share that All-Time Best Vandalism
Evar that had you cracked up for 20 minutes with your friends. I've had that
urge; so has everyone who's ever added to BJAODN. How do we make a place for
this? [1]
Lastly, I would love to see a discussion of whether this was appropriate
behavior by the deleting admin -- he's gotten praised by some and abused by
others. Does this sort of thing fall within being bold? Is this unilateral
behavior desirable? Something to encourage or revile? Let's leave aside
current policy about speedies, copyvios etc and think about what we *want*.
Finally, three challenges. First, I'd like to challenge those who care about
it to improve the existing BJAODN page, maybe giving a short explanation of
this phenomena -- especially for the sake of the many, many incoming links
-- and showcasing some of the early diffs, which are pretty funny. It would
also be great if an admin could retrieve the page titles of the various
BJAODN collections, and post them as a reminder of what we had.
Second, I'd like to challenge everyone who is arguing about copyright on
this mailing list to take the amount of time you've spent sending emails,
double it, and spend that amount of time checking articles and new
contributions for copyvios from material in the outside world. I guarantee
you'll find a few, and this is a MUCH bigger problem than BJAODN ever was.
Thirdly, for everyone who thought that the collection of jokes wasn't funny
or encyclopedic and therefore should go: a challenge to remember that good
faith and tolerance of a lot of random crap is what makes any of us put up
with this website at all. While no one is more self-righteous about making
this a serious encyclopedia than me, we're talking about 60-odd pages out of
7,000,000, and things like BJAODN are like amateur comedy hour, or karaoke
-- you may not like it, and it may be painful to listen to, but that doesn't
mean you have to go on a crusade against every karaoke bar in the city and
get a court order to shut them all down.[2]
Thoughts?
phoebe
[1] The last thing I added to BJAODN *still* makes me laugh when I think
about it.
[2] though if you do, I won't stop you; I can't stand the stuff.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
>
>> (2) A presumption against publishing articles on people who have been
>> victims of stalking, in cases where publication of an article on
>> Wikipedia might subject them to additional harassment.
>
> For a while I've thought something like "Wikipedia is not the
> creator of
> news" should apply. (Probably badly worded; reword as you wish). If
> creating a Wikipedia article itself helps to spread or advance
> something
> described in the article, we shouldn't have it. (This only applies
> when
> that article specifically, not just Wikipedia in general, advances
> a cause.
> We wouldn't delete the article for Internet or the one for
> Wikipedia itself.)
What Ken is describing sounds more like a reiteration of Wikipedia's
existing "no original research policy" than something specifically
addressing stalking or cyberstalking. I think stalking happens
frequently enough that it deserves to be treated seriously in its own
right rather than subsumed under some other concept. In the case of
Allison Stokke, the young woman whose experience was the spark of
this thread, Wikipedia's article about her didn't *create* any news.
Her situation has been reported in the Washington Post and elsewhere.
Ken's policy therefore would not be particularly helpful in this case.
It's not 100% certain to me, by the way, that the Wikipedia article
on Stokke would need to be deleted even under an anti-stalking
policy. The versions of the Wikipedia article that I've seen have
have not sensationalized or dwelt on the blogosphere's sexualized
treatment of Stokke that is the cause of her distress. In fact, it's
possible that Stokke herself might be fine with Wikipedia having an
article about her, even if (and perhaps especially if) it mentions
the harassment and her objections to it. She doesn't seem to object
to ALL mentions of her. She just wants the heavy-breathing stuff to
stop. The Washington Post article on her situation states that she
has sought media consultant advice to help "get this all under
control," and it's clear from reading the article that Stokke and her
father were both interviewed by the Post's reporter. It seems likely
that they cooperated with the reporter because they hoped that the
Post's story would help put out the word that she objects to the way
bloggers are using her image. An appropriately-written Wikipedia
article might serve the same purpose and therefore might be something
that she would welcome.
To determine whether this is the case, of course, someone would need
to contact Stokke or her family on behalf of Wikipedia and inquire
directly about their wishes, and this sort of inquiry cannot be done
by the entire collective. (The last thing she needs is a mob of
Wikipedians calling.) Someone would therefore have to serve as a
designated agent of Wikipedia in making the inquiry, and I don't
think Wikipedia has a structure in place to accomplish this.
The question of how Wikipedia should handle this particular situation
is less interesting to me than the question of what policies and
procedures would help address this CLASS of situations. A number of
other cases come to mind such as Richard Jewell or the Star Wars Kid
where people have become objects of unwanted and unwarranted public
attention. Existing policies such as NOR, Notability or NPOV may not
be the right policies with which Wikipedia should address these cases
when they arise.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------
I think this incident can be addressed constructively in part by
fleshing out the privacy provisions of BLP. Right now Wikipedia has a
more elaborate privacy policy for Wikipedia editors than it does for
people who happen to be the topic of articles. BLP mostly seems to
focus on neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Some
additional privacy clauses might include:
(1) No publishing of personal contact information such as address or
a phone number if there is any objection by the person profiled.
(2) A presumption against publishing articles on people who have been
victims of stalking, in cases where publication of an article on
Wikipedia might subject them to additional harassment.
(3) A non-absolute presumption against publishing articles on minors.
By "non-absolute" I mean that this should be interpreted as one
factor but not the only factor in determining whether an article
should be published.
The code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists has
some provisions that might adapted for Wikipedia's purposes:
> Minimize Harm
> Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human
> beings deserving of respect.
>
> Journalists should:
>
> — Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by
> news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children
> and inexperienced sources or subjects.
> — Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs
> of those affected by tragedy or grief.
> — Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause
> harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for
> arrogance.
> — Recognize that private people have a greater right to control
> information about themselves than do public officials and others
> who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public
> need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
> — Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
> — Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of
> sex crimes.
> — Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal
> filing of charges.
> — Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the
> public’s right to be informed.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------